The author of this list attempts here to piece together a claim from the
Qur'an that even though God specifically declares many times throughout it that Jesus
(pbuh) is not His son and that this claim is a blasphemy of the worst kind, still, he
thinks that if he tries heard enough he might be able to claim that through implication it
might be possible for the dedicated student to make the Qur'an "hint" at
endorsing what it explicitly refutes and warns against in many places. But he is measured
in his approach. He covers all bases first. He starts by saying "Is Jesus the son
of Allah? The Qur'an says no." which he then follows up with his implication that
in spite of this, still, the Qur'an might still leave the door open for the exact opposite
of its explicit claims to be true. In this manner, he attempts to leave himself the room
he shall need to maneuver if anyone simply points to God's continuous and repeated
explicit refutations of the claim that Jesus (pbuh) is his son. In this case, he can
simply say "I already said that the Qur'an says 'no'." However, he then
goes on to imply that such a simple matter as the God's explicit condemnation does not
necessarily mean that He really means it. He attempts to justify this position with the
following words:

"1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus.

2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of
Jesus

3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined
by just two parties: Allah and Mary"

From these claims he manages to convince himself that he has managed to
make the Qur'an hint at endorsing what it explicitly condemns.

It is interesting to notice that in two previous question he objected very strenuously to any claims
where the angels are described as being responsible for "taking a person's soul"
or "protecting humans." In those cases he insisted that the angels themselves
must be responsible for this act in total independence of God and would not allow their
simply being vicegerents of God or tools of God in the implementation of His will. That
was the only way he could generate a "contradiction" in those two cases. By
making their wills independent or above that of God rather than being a result or
outgrowth of God's command and will. However, in this case, suddenly he is fully able and
willing to understand and even accept the fact that angels are only the tools of God which
He uses to implement His will, since his insistence on his previous stance would have
required that in this case he would need to claim that it was "angel Gabriel and
Mary" who were responsible for the birth of Jesus (pbuh) and not his current claim of
"God and Mary." This is because the Qur'an tells us that it was the angel
Gabriel who "blew" into Mary (pbuh). I suppose that he could probably fix this
problem by claiming that angel Gabriel is Jesus' father and that this will now prove
another "contradiction" with any verses which claim that God created Jesus
(pbuh) without any father whatsoever.

According to such "logic," we need to wonder that since God
"determined all of the physical characteristics" of Adam (pbuh) and that
"All of the genetic characteristics" of Adam were also determined by only one
party, God, therefore, does the Qur'an also "hint" that Adam is God's son? Does
the Qur'an now contain claims that are "entirely consistent" with God being both
Adam's father and his mother? It appears that this would be an entirely acceptable and
logical way to prove this claim in this author's eyes. It does not matter what the verses
explicitly say, those claims are far to uncomfortable and hindersome to the desired goal.
Far better to try and give them "hidden" meanings so that they can be bent and
tortured into endorsing his preconceived beliefs regardless of what they explicitly say.

It is strange that this is indeed the very way he attempts to prove that
the Bible claims that Jesus (pbuh) is God. Through "hints" and
"implications." Indeed, he is incorrect in assuming that God only determined
"some of" the genetics or characteristics of Jesus (pbuh). The fact of the
matter is that God determines ALL of the genetics and characteristics of ALL humans. Read
for example A'al-Umran(3):6, Al-Infitar(82):8, Ghafi(40):64, Al-Wakiah(56):58, or
Fatir(35):11.

If I design and build a car, this means that I have determined its
"characteristics" or "genetics," that they were all determined by me,
and that I am responsible for causing the plant to produce (become "pregnant
with") this car. If I then proclaim many times quite explicitly that "I am
not the father of this car, rather, I simply designed and built it. It and the plant which
produced it are both vastly inferior to me," then will the author of this list
manage to completely side-step my explicit words to manage to "imply" that in
his view it is "entirely consistent with these words to consider the designer of
the car to be the car's father"? But if someone is bent on making a book say the
exact opposite of what it explicitly declares then I suppose such a small issue as its
explicit wording shall not be a big hindrance to the attainment of that goal. Oh well.